[33119] in North American Network Operators' Group
RE: RFC1918 addresses to permit in for VPN? (fwd)
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (John Fraizer)
Sat Dec 30 02:41:57 2000
Date: Sat, 30 Dec 2000 02:39:39 -0500 (EST)
From: John Fraizer <nanog@EnterZone.Net>
To: nanog@merit.edu
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0012300237580.6555-100000@Overkill.EnterZone.Net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2000 21:54:10 -0500
From: Wants to keep their Job <xxxx@bellsouth.net>
To: John Fraizer <nanog@EnterZone.Net>
Subject: RE: RFC1918 addresses to permit in for VPN?
Typical, indeed. *sigh*
BellSouth. Telco Heads, running Telco Products. Let's squeeze this
Internet thing into a two-pound telco bag and hope it doesn't squirt out of
the sides... L'idiote de telco... :)
I'd take up a collection to buy this guy a clue, but if anyone found out it
was a Bell Head, no one would give!
At 07:01 PM 12/29/00, you wrote:
>On Fri, 29 Dec 2000, Deron J. Ringen wrote:
>
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: owner-nanog@merit.edu [mailto:owner-nanog@merit.edu]On Behalf Of
> > > Simon Lyall
> > > Sent: Friday, December 29, 2000 3:03 PM
> > > To: nanog@merit.edu
> > > Subject: Re: RFC1918 addresses to permit in for VPN?
> > .
> > .
> > > One of the companies we work with has 192.168 address for some of the
> > > radius servers we have to talk to, we are directly connected to them so
> > > it's not a big pain but it's just so ugly.
> > .
> > .
> > That makes perfect sense to me...there is not a better way to protect a box
> > from a DOS/hack than to only give it a private address. Why expose a box
> > to the outside world if there is not a need???
>
>Deron,
>
>Ever heard of an access list? Didn't think so.
>
> > Deron J. Ringen
> > Sr. Network Architect
> > BellSouth Internet Services
>
>Typical.
>
>---
>John Fraizer
>EnterZone, Inc
